Supplemental Materials

What is included with this book?

The New copy of this book will include any supplemental materials advertised. Please check the title of the book to determine if it should include any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

The Used, Rental and eBook copies of this book are not guaranteed to include any supplemental materials. Typically, only the book itself is included. This is true even if the title states it includes any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.

Summary

Updated annually, in its ninth edition, You Decide!is a best-selling, debate-style reader that examines the most timely, important, and provocative issues in American politics. Topics selected for this text argue various sides of a given political issue and come from recent journals, congressional hearings, think tanks, and periodicals. You Decide!draws readers into the key topics that have made headlines and affected our political system during 2011 and will continue to affect our daily lives in 2012.

Table of Contents

1. CONSTITUTON - THE MANDATE THAT INDIVIDUALS BUY HEALTH INSURANCE: NECESSARY AND PROPER OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT?The Mandate That Individuals Buy Health Insurance: Necessary and Proper Advocate: John Kroger, Attorney General of OregonSource: Testimony during hearings on “The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, February 2, 2011The Mandate That Individuals Buy Health Insurance: Unconstitutional RequirementAdvocate: Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General Of VirginiaSource: Testimony during hearings on “The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate,” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, February 16, 2011

2. FEDERALISM - ARIZONA’S LAW ENCOURAGING CITIZEN IDENTITY CHECKS BY POLICE: STATE INTRUSION INTO NATIONAL POLICY OR PERMISSIBLE STATE ACTION?

Arizona’s Law Encouraging Citizen Identity Checks by Police: State Intrusion into National Policy

Advocate: Attorneys representing the U.S. government seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Arizona’s S.B. 1070Source: The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants, Case 2:10-cv-01413, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, July 6, 2010 Arizona’s Law Encouraging Citizen Identity Checks by Police: Permissible State Action Advocate: Attorneys representing Arizona and its governor, Janice K. Brewer, seeking to block a petition by the U.S. government to enjoin the enforcement of Arizona’s S.B. 1070Source: The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants, Case 2:10-cv-01413, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, July 20, 2010

3. CIVIL LIBERTIES - THE PHRASE “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR ACCEPTABLE TRADITIONAL EXPRESSION?

The Phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: Violation of the First Amendment

Advocate: Douglas Laycock, Professor, School of Law, University of Texas; and Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Elk Gove School District v. Newdow Source: A discussion of the topic “Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and held before the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., March 19. 2004The Phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: Acceptable Traditional ExpressionAdvocate: Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice; and Counsel of Record for 76 members of Congress and the Committee to Protect the Pledge filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Elk Gove School District v. Newdow Source: A discussion of the topic “Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and held before the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., March 19, 2004

5. AMERICAN PEOPLE/POLITICAL CULTURE - THE CULTURAL ASSIMILATION OF IMMIGRANTS: THE MELTING POT IS BROKEN OR BLENDING SATISFACTORILY?

The Cultural Assimilation of Immigrants: The Melting Pot Is Broken

Advocate: John Fonte, Director, Center for American Common Culture, Hudson InstituteSource: Testimony during hearings on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans—U.S Immigrant Integration” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, May 16, 2007The Cultural Assimilation of Immigrants: Blending SatisfactorilyAdvocate: Gary Gerstle, James Stahlman Professor of History, Department of History, Vanderbilt UniversitySource: Testimony during hearings on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans—U.S Immigrant Integration” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, May 16, 2007

Advocate: David Simon, creator and executive producer of the HBO television series The WireSource: Testimony during hearings on Senate Subcommittee on "The Future of Journalism" before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, May 6, 2009The Future of Quality Journalism: SecureAdvocate: Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington PostSource: Testimony during hearings on "The Future of Journalism" before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, May 6, 20098. INTEREST GROUPS - PERMITTING CORPORATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTiON CAMPAIGNS: A BLOW TO DEMOCRACY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE?Permitting Corporations to Participate in Election Campaigns: A Blow to Democracy Advocates: Monica Youn, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of LawSource: Testimony during hearings on the “First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform After CitizensUnited,” before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, February 3, 2010Permitting Corporations to Participate in Election Campaigns: Constitutionally AppropriateAdvocate: M. Todd Henderson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.Source: “Citizens United: A Defense,” Faculty Blog, University of Chicago Law School. March 12, 2010

10. VOTING/CAMPAIGNS/ELECTIONS - ELECTING THE PRESIDENT: ADOPT THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN OR PRESERVE ECECTORAL COLLEGE?

Electing the President: Adopt the National Popular Vote Plan

Advocate: National Popular Vote, an advocacy organization Source: “Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, from the Web site of National Popular Vote, April 29, 2009

Electing The President: Preserve the Electoral CollegeAdvocate: John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato InstituteSource: “A Critique of he National Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President,” Policy Analysis (October 13, 2008)Also suitable for chapters on Presidency, Federalism

Advocate: Thomas E. Mann, W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution Source: Testimony during hearings on “Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures” before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, June 23, 2010Senate Filibusters: Preventing Majority Tyranny Advocate: Lee Rawls Faculty member, National War College and Adjunct Professor, College of William and MarySource: Testimony during hearings on “Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures” before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, June 23, 2010

12. PRESIDENCY - BARACK OBAMA’S USE OF THE PRESIDENT’S WAR POWERS: REASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE?Barack Obama’s Use of the President’s War Powers: Reasonable Advocate: Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Source: Testimony during hearings on “Libya and War Powers,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011 Barack Obama’s Use of the President’s War Powers: ExcessiveAdvocate: Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence, Constitution ProjectSource: Testimony during hearings on “Libya and War Powers,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011

13. BUREAUCRACY - THE NEW CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU: CONSUMER GUARDIAN OR DANGEROUS BUREAUCRACY? The New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Consumer GuardianAdvocate: Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection BureauSource: Testimony during hearings on “The Rulemaking Process and Unitary Executive Theory” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, May 6, 2008

The New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Dangerous BureaucracyAdvocate: Todd Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason UniversitySource: Testimony during hearings on “Who’s Watching the Watchmen? Oversight Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Relations, Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, May 24, 2011

14. JUDICIARY - DECIDING ON THE CONSTITUTION’S MEANING: RELY ON THE ORIGNAL AUTHORS OR INTERPRET IN LIGHT OF MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES?

Deciding the Constitution’s Meaning: Rely on the Original Authors

Advocate: Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University.Source: “Originalism Within the Living Constitution,” Advance: The Journal of the American Constitution Society Issues Groups, Fall 2007Deciding the Meaning of the Constitution: Interpret in Light of Modern CircumstancesAdvocate: Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke UniversitySource: “Constitutional Interpretation for the Twenty-first Century,” Advance: The Journal of the American Constitution Society Issues Groups, Fall 2007

15. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - ALLOWING STATES TO COLLECT SALES TAXES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE: LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD OR A THREAT TO ELECTRONIC COMMERCE?Allowing States to Collect Sales Taxes on Interstate Commerce: Leveling the Playing Field Advocate: Steven Rauschenberger, past President, National Conference of State LegislaturesSource: Testimony during hearings on “H.R. 3396 — The Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act”before the House Of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Administrative And Commercial Law, December 6, 2007

Allowing States To Collect Sales Taxes On Interstate Commerce: A Threat To Electronic CommerceAdvocate: George S. Isaacson, Tax Counsel for the Direct Marketing AssociationSource: Testimony during hearings on “H.R. 3396 - The Sales Tax Fairness And Simplification Act” before the House Of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Administrative And Commercial Law, December 6, 2007

Adding A Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution: Fiscal Imperative

Advocate: Andrew Moylan, Vice President of Government Affairs National Taxpayers UnionSource: Testimony during hearings on “Should the Constitution be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit” held before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011

Adding A Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution: Unnecessary And UnwiseAdvocate: Robert Greenstein, President, Center on Budget and Policy PrioritiesSource: Testimony during hearings on ““Should the Constitution be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit” held before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011

17. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY - TRYING THOSE ACCUSED OF TERRORISM: USE CIVILIAN COURTS OR USE MILITARY COMMISSIONS?

Trying Those Accused of Terrorism: Use Civilian Courts

Advocate: Stephen A. Saltzburg, Wallace And Beverley Woodbury University Professor, George Washington University Law SchoolSource: Testimony during hearings on “Justice for America: Using Military Commissions to Try the 9/11 Conspirators” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security, April 5, 2011

Trying Those Accused of Terrorism: Use Military CommissionsAdvocate: Stephanie Hessler, Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy StudiesSource: Testimony during hearings on “Justice for America: Using Military Commissions to Try the 9/11 Conspirators” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security, April 5, 2011

EXTENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS:WEB ISSUESThe following topics are available on the Web at:http://www.ablongman.com/long_rourke_YD_2012/

Advocate: Kerry Emanuel, Breene M. Kerr Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of TechnologySource: Testimony on “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” during hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 31st 2011

Federal Policy Regarding Global Warming: Proceed Cautiously At BestAdvocate: W. David Montgomery, Economist and Consultant specializing in environmental issuesSource: Testimony on “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” during hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 31st 2011

19. CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY - THE DEATH PENALTY: FATALLY FLAWED OR DEFENSIBLE?The Death Penalty: Fatally FlawedAdvocate: Stephen B. Bright, Director, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, Georgia; Visiting Lecturer in Law, Harvard and Yale Law SchoolsSource: Testimony during hearings on “An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United States” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 1, 2006 The Death Penalty: DefensibleAdvocate: John McAdams, Professor of Political Science, Marquette University Source: Testimony during hearings on “An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United States” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 1, 2006

20. SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY - POVERTY IN AMERICA: BAD AND GETTING WORSE OR NOT BAD AND GETTING BETTER?Poverty in America: Bad and Getting Worse Advocate: John Podesta, President, Center for American ProgressSource: Testimony during hearings on “Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America” before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, April 26, 2007Poverty in America: Not Bad and Getting BetterAdvocate: Robert Rector, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage FoundationSource: Testimony during hearings on “Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America” before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, April 26, 2007

Advocate: Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, National Women’s Law CenterSource: Testimony during hearings on the “Paycheck Fairness Act” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, July 11, 2007 Achieving Gender Pay Equity: Current Law SatisfactoryAdvocate: Barbara Berish Brown, Chair, Washington, D.C. office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Vice-Chair, Labor & Employment Law Section, American Bar Association Source: Testimony during hearings on the “Paycheck Fairness Act” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, April 12, 2007

22. EDUCATION POLICY - ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE: JUSTIFIED OR UNACCEPTABLE?Assigning Students to Schools Based on Race: Justified Advocate: National Education Association, et al.Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)Assigning Students to Schools Based on Race: Unacceptable Advocate: Asian American Legal FoundationSource: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)